Court Insider Exposes Judicial Treachery November

16, 2012

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/11/court-insider-exposes-judicial-treachery/630-632-

parachini/

As a former long-time newsman and writer for the Los Angeles Times for 25 years, Allan

Parachini served for eight years as the Public Information Officer for the Los Angeles Superior

Court. He was there during the incredible persecution of Dr. Richard Fine, who served eighteen

months in solitary coercive confinement. In this preview of parts one and two of this three-part

interview, he explains why the judges did everything they could to destroy Dr. Fine.

In this second interview, Alan Parachini was retired in his home. Full Disclosure had filed a

request to get a copy of the contract between the County and the Los Angeles Superior Court

Judges. Allan had seen this contract that specified an agreement between the two parties that

established that each of them would receive the same generous benefits package. Allan explains

how the Judges work hard to “keep the public out” of their business.

Related posts:

1. Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Regarding Documentary Movie Narrated By Ed Asner

Blocked By Court Politics? #VB112

2. Judicial Watch v. Superior Court Movie Ban

3. Richard I. Fine Is Free: Result of Judicial Conscience or Confusion?

4. Should Judges Be Prosecuted In Order To Reform The California Judicial System?

5. L A Times Endorsements Ignore Judicial Crimes: Spark Debate Challenge

6.

Dan az | February 13, 2013 |

There is one person that has fired and disbarred about 4000 lawyers and about 1500

judges and his name is David Wynn Miller.You people really should contact him.You

can find him on you tube and his web site just type in his name.I really hate to see this

continue on the path that it is on. Please contact this man you will not be sorry.

Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012 | Permalink Reply

The simple solution that will have broad affect is to repeal the 11th amendment, and

amend the constitution to end archaic “sovereign immunity.”After all, repealing slavery

ended the right to own those we could abuse. We also need to finish this and end the right

to abuse allowed under the 11th amendment. I second that motion, see

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=lcp&sei-

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%

26q%3Dorigin%2520of%2520us%2520private%2520attorney%2520general%26source

%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CD8QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fsc

holarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1077%2526

context%253Dlcp%26ei%3DuI3BUKLPIsiIiwKtyYDQCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHUome

Ny6drp2YxBL0XtNlg1DxIQg#search=%22origin%20us%20private%20attorney%20gen

eral%22

Pat Hamer | December 4, 2012

Mr. Fine is another example of how so called civil right activist, miss the point, falling

into the fallacy that swatting a mosquito is their solution for redressing abuse of power.

It is good that there are web sites like Full Disclosure. It is bad that these web sites

violate principles of logical syllogism. Mr. Fines dilemma is portrayed from a minor

premise, that, according to the speaker, Alan Parachini, in this video acknowledges as the

“judiciary violating state law and procedure until an appellate court reverses their

decisions, which are non other than willful malicious corruption and violation of criminal

statute 18 usc 242, RICO violations, among many other crimes. Leslie Dutton begs the

question, “what possible justification were the judges using to protect these illegal

payments.”

They boil the story down to, “Mr. Fine was a Political Prisoner…not about contempt for

non disclosure, but getting back at him…” aka retaliatory vindictive animus.

Its as if, the full disclosure network has no clue of the existence of the Constitutional

Supremacy Clause that grants all officials the same “sovereign rights” originated under

theological dogma from the post dark ages, used by rulers thought to be placed their by

God under the divinity of despotism our Declaration cited as a cause of action, that

created “tyranny” which they stated in the Declaration as a “right inestimable for them

and formidable for tyrants only.” This right of tyrants, is a perversion of the genus and

species of logic passed of as common law jus cogens used today. Used—according to this

230 year old declaration, creates futile objection or First Amendment Redress by

“Judicial Tyranny and Mock Trials (see Declaration of Independance) to skew the justice

we think is deserving of our constitution to its citizens. This overt act of contempt

proceedings by the courts in their “mock trials” by “judicial tyrants.” Through another

means of logical perversion of genus and species of terms, equivocation, “abuse of

discretion,” though criminal for non judicial officials (18 USC 242) , has been redefined

as “reversible abuse of discretion.” Amazingly, 18 USC 242 says “abuse of power is

criminal.” But through the magic wand of the courts, simply change the word power to

discretion, (in reality has no affect on the meaning as they are synonym) and our courts

are converted into Organized Criminals who preserve their “Sovereign” power in order to

further preserve this right by destroying in modern day inquisitions citizens of the world

who can recognize this betrayal of mankind by its leaders. What Mr. Fine did, was none

other than what was done by Galileo, who pointed out that Copernicus had proven that so

called religious oracle of God, forced upon society untruth that the earth was the center of

the universe. Galileo was imprisoned for life, as he did not have a network like that of

Leslie Dutton. The punishment was light, as inquisitions for layman were usually so

obscene, that the “doctrine of immunity” laced as “divine sovereign liberty,” was used to

justify official abuse of drowning the accused to prove their innocence, among other

holocaust events used to silence objection to abuse of power.

My point is that today’s events, where we see criminal acts by judges and government

officials go ignored by “turning a blind eye,” are not at all different from what

Copernicus and Galileo objected to 1500 years ago. However, their stories were

equivocated to great leaders of science, and not as the civil and human right activist.

Today we see Mrs. Dutton, and Mr. Parachini, blaming some judge for exercising his

constitutional right to act as a “Sovereign.” Yet they quote some lame California

Constitution law that says that is the violation. It may be, but Alden v. Maine, stated that

we, “the supreme court refuse to believe that officials will violate the supreme law of the

land…,” thus, “we must have faith that officials will obey the laws, therefore they cannot

be held liable for violating the constitutions.” This was in 1999 where 5 against 4

Supreme Court Justices said that the constitution created sovereignty for officials to be

allowed to commit human right abuses, simply because the constitution itself was formed

and founded on the states right to be “Sovereign.” However, if you look up the origin and

definition, outside of Blacks law book, their reinterpretation of the word 400 years after

the French coined it only to describe a King or Queen, who had “absolute power.”

Even though in 1793, eye witness and an author of the Constitution stated in Chisholm v.

Georgia, “to the constitution the word sovereign was totally unknown.” In fact he,

pointed out the obvious that the revolution was sparked by “sovereign” which is a word

used to describe individuals who have absolute power over “subjects” of sovereigns. But

in 1999, 5 of the Neo Nazi Justices, decided how simple it was to make themselves kings,

simply because society and US democracy refuse to acknowledge what sovereign means,

or mostly, that most citizens do not know it exists. They believe officials are “equal”

under the 14th amendment and the theory of equality among humans to have citizens

stripped of absolute power to serve as officials running the states business. This is far

from the truth. The 11th amendment to the constitution is a path of paper trails that reveal

this, but you have to walk the trail and pick up each document along the way which

explains and enforces what I have just stated.

Another conundrum we find in the Doctrine of Immunity they claim is “common law” or

“jus cogens” practice, is the overt perversion of the genus species of logic James Wilson

spoke of as a Supreme Court Justice in Chisholm v. Georgia which ruled that USA was a

democracy, and not a sovereignty. Of course, history shows that 2 days later, the 11th

amendment was drafted “anonymously” and ratified in 1795, with the same affect of

ending the bill of rights as inalienable rights, subject to judicial discretion weighing on

the side of corruption in state power. The conundrum pops up from the common law

origin of the “doctrine of immunity.” Bartolus of Sassoforatus in the 14th century, 700

years ago, said that state immunity was because of “par en parem non habit imperium,”

or that “an equal cannot rule over an equal.” If today’s legal theory uses common law as

justification and legal basis for state immunity which only purpose is to protect those who

violate human rights (see Jurgan Brohm, “State Immunity and the violation of human

rights) then in the USA because citizens under the 14th amendment are to be treated

“equal,” the fact is due to this immunity, state citizens are allowed to be excused from

liability, where private citizens are liable for the same abuses.

Oh yes, officials can be indicted, but one must look at sociological factors to explain why

that rarely happens. FBI, and DOJ officials reside in local counties. They can put 20 years

in with the federal government, retire and move into state or county bureaucracy, and put

another 20 years in that group, and collect multiple retirements, like my father did. But if

they have been in the community prosecuting corrupt officials, they will be black balled.

This is speculation, but it is reasonably a factor. We victims of whistle blower retaliation

know on the front lines, that officials ignore criminal acts of other officials. This paints a

very bleak picture.

So Leslie, to answer your question, “what possible justification were the judges using to

protect these illegal payments,” we see that the US Constitution gives them justification,

as interpreted by the Alden court in 1999. We see that in Bogan v. Scott-Harris US 1998

the same court a year earlier stated regarding official corruption allegations, that “even if

corrupt, he can be indicted, but the law will not tolerate a citizen redress…” They said

“this fact was well known and long standing.” I don’t know why you don’t know this

“long standing well known” fact. If you would learn it, then maybe your efforts will stop

being futile swatting mosquitoes when you can lead a path to drain the bloody pond of

corruption. Bogan actually articulated that they overturned the first amendment right for

meaningful redress. Citizens are not barred from the court for redress, they are brought

before magistrates and judges who attempt to find ways to contempt them when shock

sets in for realizing that everything they were taught about justice was a lie!

My prayer to the people is that they become aware of this reality I speak of and stop

attacking the wrong enemy. It isn’t local corruption, they are told they have this right by

the supreme court who rely upon the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine to protect the

US government officials who choose to be corrupt from US citizens who object to

corruption that has damaged their lives.

Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012

What I am saying is that due to the immunity from liability, this benefit has transferred

into the criminal side, which should be prosecuting these judges under various statutes

such as 18 USC 242, 243, RICO and others. See Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona,

who is actually in prison for similar abuse of power, “influence peddling and witness

tampering/intimidation.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-carona-

sg,0,139287.storygallery. Now his attorney’s will probable get him released, by doing

more “influence peddling with your corrupt LA judges,

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/17/local/la-me-1117-carona-20121117

Enforcement of criminal abuse of power seems to be jurisdictional. Furthermore, it seems

to be levied against officials who have probably been “too big for their britches” in the

eyes of other officials, perhaps Corona wasn’t a “team player” enough, and was punished

by these officials. So we see, it isn’t possible to prosecute officials, like Judge Yaffe

court, but the Yaffe court was favored over Corona and allowed to step down instead of

being placed in prison. Where is the equality? One must ask, why is he not also in prison

for using the courts to punish critics, which is a violation of judicial canon, proving that

he possibly maliciously prosecuted Fine, who had successfully sued him. How can a

judge who you have sued, be free from bias? Impossible! This was a vendetta with

vindictive animus on the part of the court; hence Fine was freed without proving any

crime by him. He is an innocent victim of state tyranny.

The reason you don’t “get me on this one…” is common among those who have not

looked at the constitutional coup that was done when the 11th amendment was ratified in

1795. I think prior to the last few decades, officials where generally shy from treading

into the grey area of human right abuse that is equivocated in the USA as civil right

abuse, which sounds less damaging than human right abuse. Since 1795, officials had

sparingly used this “sovereign right to abuse without liability.” Since 1999 Alden v.

Maine and other cases probably earlier, the Supreme Court has stated to officials, we will

not hold you liable for ignoring Article VI of the Constitution. The unwritten law seems

to grant inferences that they also will not be held criminally liable, unless they are not

team players aiding in the strengthening of sovereign power, which solely for millennia is

used to justify government abuse, or what was then “despotism.”

This right was easily enforced on pre 20th century humans who were uneducated, and

without resources to educate themselves. Whereby the educated received an unfeterred

benefit from liability for overly exploiting citizen’s which was the source of many

empires built by so called “blue bloods.” Sovereignty is the source of power, and it

cannot belong in a democracy. If there ever was a holy grail, this is it! The proper word

that we should use in our democracy is “autonomy, not sovereignty.” We have no

divinely appointed officials, supposedly due to separation of church and state. However

the “church of the Sovereigns,” if you will for lack of a better phrase, is not separated

from USA. However, from 1776 until 1795, that church was utterly destroyed, until it

was again ratified by the 11th amendment by perverting the rational use of diplomatic

immunity among autonomous or nations that by decree are sovereign. The 11th

amendment is purely based upon religious dogma from the dark ages, because the “stari

decisis” implication is that of “diplomatic Immunity,” which keeps our world from

isolation, and harms very few individual citizens worldwide.

Thus, officials today, since Alden, mimic the FRENZY of the 1849 gold rush where

officials typically bared by conscience or principle have abandoned the principle of

inalienable rights and over-step this for profit by silencing individuals with state

punishment for whistle blowing, even though they still leave the statements that we have

a right to “redress” in the first amendment. It is clearly stated by the Supreme Court that

we do not have a constitutional right to redress. What other parts of the Constitution are

now mere poetry?

This whistle blowing interferes with an officials ability to make profits or protect their

cronies, simply by making “ad hoc decisions” that unconstitutionally deprive the rights of

individuals. The Ninth Circuit in 2 separate cases, Kaahumanu v. City of Maui 2005 and

Norse v. Santa Cruz 2009 ruled that “ad hoc” decisions by officials abrogates immunity!

However, like Alan Parachini has pointed out, the lower courts do not have to comply

unless the appellate court orders them too, which is very rare that the lower court

decisions get appealed. Losing a lower court can bankrupt an individual, they don’t

postpone judgments or damages you have to pay, unless you can afford to bond around it,

which is unlikely, as you have no money now! Judges can operate a criminal enterprise

without any deterrence. Even if you can appeal, it has no deterring influence as it does

not remove the benefit from that the judge or official the judge is insulating from the

balance of justice. In addition, the odds are in there favor, appellate courts are obscenely

expensive, and are the elements of “irrational arbitrary discrimination,” according to the

same court, is a “cause of murder, stalking, harassment and violence, at the hands of

officials and district courts,” see Macias v. Ihde 9th 2000, (upheld in 2010). Who in their

right mind, wants to go through that, and by the end of a corrupt district court, the

average person is no longer “in their right mind.”

In El Dorado County, this “cause of murder” an actual murder weapon was used to

silence a critic of a local DA Vern Pierson. This critic, John O’Sullivan, sued Pierson,

who was DA and refused to enforce laws to stop stalking and violence by a “retired

sheriff Zimmerman” (aka a crony colleague) who was allowed, through inaction, by

Pierson to shoot O’Sullivan in the back. Zimmerman is now in prison for life, but he

successfully ended the suit against Pierson. “Its good to be the King,” according to Mel

Brooks interpretation of King Luis the XIV, who eventually lost his head. Stating Pierson

followed the elements of “arbitrary descrimation” that the 9th circuit stated was a “cause

of murder,” without other incidences would be speculative. However, my wife and I were

vandalized, stalked and threatened with murder by a man claiming influence power with

Vern Pierson, D.A, and again, Pierson ignored our valid video taped evidence and

panoply of witnesses showing that we were in reasonable fear of safety, from a man

released, apparently to “murder or stalk or intimidate us” from a 1/4 million dollar bail

protecting society by the DA’s predecessor, Gary Lacy. Pierson, again through inaction

to protect us, denied us similar protection other non critic citizens get from vandals and

stalkers, and by this authorized a mentally ill man to murder us if he so desired. We had

to move and maintain 2 residences, otherwise we would face the same as O’Sullivan,

RIP. So while you guys in LA whine about a little incarceration for your abuse victims,

El Dorado County Officials in old “Hang Town” Placerville, are murdering those who

complain against them under the Macias v. Ihde elements, MANIFEST AS A MURDER

WEAPON, that are the “cause of murder” for victims of violence, who are disgruntled

about arbitrary willful inaction that violates the 14th amendment equal access to justice.

If you want to see the typical view of an official who is basically a Nazi Stalinist in

attitude, who disdains liberty, see the Ninth Circuit Argument by Santa Cruz Defense

attorney, who stated to the court, regardless “that I have forgot the basis for filing an

appeal…” he wanted the court to roll with him on this, apparently, it seemed he thought

the court was part of his good ole boy network and wouldn’t require any basis, which is

typical of corrupt district courts.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000005940

“We will not let you engage in double speak, and rewrite the first amendment. This as an

amazing case and precedent, but only Santa Cruz and Maui are privy to the damages that

would occur to the tax payers if they proceed to make “ad hoc” abuse of power, “even in

legislative capacity.” All other 9th circuit counties in the US, will not comply. Maui and

Santa Cruz have been served notice that “failure to adequately train” is the consequence

for more damages. Unfortunately, the districts will ignore this without any deterrence

whatsoever. I have correspondence form Maui “corporate city attorney” advising the city

counsel, how to get around this “loop hole.” They are no worried, as the now the futility,

if ever another case was appealed. So the lesson here is that the appellate courts state the

contrary, presenting a good appearance of our justice system, but there really is no

compliance by the lower courts in matters of state liability.

Santa Cruz attorney, was so adamant on arresting silent protestors that he appealed to the

supreme court in 2011. They rejected this absurd appeal without hearing it.

So, in an attempt to sway critics or skeptics from ad hominem attack on my research, I

am pointing to facts in history of recent court cases, especially Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999,

Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998, and the 11th amendment that reinstated religious Dogma to

assert on a society. This dogmatic counter-revolution reinstated this “inestimable to them

and formidable right of tyrants (declaration of Independence) over-turning the effects of

the revolution that temporarily created an end to dogmatic right to abuse, a paradigm shift

first mentioned by Copernicus. The revolution only ended the right to abuse citizen’s

from 1776 until 1795 when the 11th amendment was ratified, which reinstated the same

abuses as declared in the Declaration.

If you fail to see what is wrong with this picture, I accurately trace from historical

documents, that is a problem that has somehow escaped scrutiny of some very wise men.

Contrarily, this argument has fallen on deaf ears from very great and wise professors of

law, 4 of the Supreme Court Justices contrary to the Kennedy/Scalia court (Alden

dissent) and many individuals, such as dean of law at UC Irvine, Erwin Chemerinsky,

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/profile_e_chemerinsky.html SEE

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%

26q%3Dalden%2520v.%2520maine%2520defendants%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2

%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu

%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26e

i%3D8g4PUNSfA-

fmiwLXzYHQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA#searc

h=%22alden%20v.%20maine%20defendants%22

On the other hand, there is the “over-deterrence theory” that is used to justify immunity

and counter the argument I make. However, there are no examples in world history where

society’s who ignored the fallacy claim they make using the “over-deterrence theory” has

failed; or where a burden of society has been created. As it stands now, most citizens are

not aware they cannot “MEANINGFULLY” sue officials who violate constitutional

rights, and the burden created allows the courts to open for the purpose of profiting Bar

Association members, when it would be more financially benificial to the state to just

close the clerks doors to civil right abuse victims. But that would sound the alarm.

Instead, they pretend that “disgruntled citizen’s with possible mental problems related to

“conspiracy theories” are burdening tax payers. An argument that sells well to the

ignorant and easily influenced democracy of buffoons in our system that vote. After all

the stigma is, hey they had their day in court and lost, so it must have been a frivolous

suit. Yet immunity defense clearly is known as “so what your honor, even if what the

plaintiff says is true, we are immune,” see (Bogan, supra)

The over-deterrence theory is a red hearing fallacy! It is a very weak non existing theory

that is being used where what it claims, is actually being done anyway, only that lawyers,

members of the BAR, are profiting by receiving the constitutional “redress” benefits that

belong to human right abuse victims, such as individuals like Richard I Fine, myself, and

others such as El Dorado County victim Penny Arnold.

Both Penny, and Myself have got Judge James Wagoner admonished by the California

Counsel on Judicial Performance. James Wagoner engaged in wire fraud, abuse of power

and I alleged RICO in the complaint to the http://www.cjp.ca.gov. They found our claim

valid, and doled out punishment, very light punishment. Wagoner should be in prison

with Mike Carona. Go figure, I have stated why I think our fellow Americans in the

justice departments have abandoned their duty for favoritism from high ranking officials

who don’t want to be scrutinized by law enforcement. I speak from experience and vast

research into the origins and path of the history of the “doctrine of immunity.” It is not

necessary! It only creates inequality in citizenship. Those lucky enough to get public

service jobs are immunity from liability for every day business, while private citizens in

business are held liable, yet business does not fail! It is the condoning of corruption by

creating Constitutional amendments that create a frenzy among officials to push the

envelope of civil right abuse, under the stigma, “if I don’t do it, someone else will, so

why not benefit!” Repeal the 11th amendment and bar sovereign rights of immunity, and

our country will turn around; this has never been done on planet earth, and is the last

frontier for freedom by removing a defense to corruption which has become so

misconstrued and it now cultivates further corruption.

legalbear | December 6, 2012 | Permalink Reply

I like your comments here. I think viable solutions start with a realistic assessment of the

problem and you’ve done a great job of that from my view. I’m a big proponent of using

a martial arts principle in the fight; that being, use your opponents momentum against

him. Football fans can see this principle in action in zone blocking schemes. Let your

opponent develop some momentum in a particular direction because it is easier to block a

muscle bound opponent in the direction he already wants to go. While you block the

opponent in the direction he is already headed a hole opens up and that is where the

running back runs. One cut and he is off to the races.

I’ve done some 42 USC § 1983 suits and lost every time. One quote that keeps coming

out is from Malley v. Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986), “…qualified immunity defense has

evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who

knowingly violate the law.” Id. @ 341. Oh, the defense attorneys love the quote. Their

almost universal assertion in defense of the governmental clients summarized is, ‘My

client is not plainly incompetent and he did not knowingly violate the law.’

The momentum in the comment is the direction the high powered (muscular) defense

attorney is headed already. We can spoil the whole thing by getting to the official ahead

of time and turning them into incompetents and making their violations “knowing”.

If we want to assert our right not to incriminate we give them a little memorandum based

on Malloy v Hogan. If we want to assert right to be secure in our papers they get a

memorandum on Boyd v. United States, etc. We can help our fellowman by letting our

notice to them be known publicly so they can’t lie about violating the law unknowingly.

If we suspect a traffic stop may be the source of what FrogFarmer calls the IMOC (Initial

Moment of Contact or Confrontation) we should carry a memorandum in the car

respecting the rights we intend to assert making the seizing cops assertion that he violated

our rights unknowingly untenable. The memorandum should quote Malley v. Briggs and

state in bold, large print that its purpose is to destroy qualified immunity. They all know

about that wonderful qualified immunity.

When dealing with a judge our first appearance should include the presentation of a

credible waiver of judicial immunity with an accompanying memorandum as to the

purpose to establish as a reality the equality described and discussed in the Declaration of

Independence, which by the way is the Supreme Law of the Land having been codified in

Statutes at Large, as well as establish inalienable rights pre 11th Amendment. Tell the

judge, ‘Without a waiver from you, I don’t consent to you being my judge.’ Under equal

protection under the laws, why should the private citizen be subjected to the disruptions

to his life of court proceedings any more than a judge? Why isn’t my life as important as

the judge’s? My contention; it is!

Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012

Thanks for reading. Yes, Monell liability has dealt with this qualified immunity, and then

they run with respondeat superior liability defense. The best thing is to sue the individual

without naming the county, if you can show that their act was ad hoc, and not affecting

all citizen rights equally, see bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998, explained well in Norse v. Santa

Cruz 9th 2009. This abrogates immunity, but getting the lower courts to punish their

associates in their jurisdiction is the problem. We filed a complaint prior to section 1983

with the state judicial counsel, and they affirmed by punishing Judge James Wagoner,

that he acted outside and in excess of his jurisdiction, by threatening to arrest my wife

and I with a letter, to retaliate and intimidate us, a witnesses who filed a grand jury

complaint.

So figuring that the state found our case to have merit, we filed the suit. The Judge

refused to answer the complaint. We filed for default judgment, the magistrate ignored it,

and our objections, in spite of rule 8, among other, where failing to respond to pleadings

or objections creates admits the allegations.

Should have been a prima facie case, but the Magistrate for 3 years simply fundamentally

misconstrued our claim by rewriting it with a counterfeit claim, and we could do nothing

but appeal. The county settled with us when we filed the appeal. Crooked SOB’s they are.

Criminals! We never got to have our case heard or responded to, even though we paid all

the appropriate fees. This magistrate is not afraid to have criminal fraud on his resume in

dealing with civil right cases that he fixes. He has a pattern of conduct, where one

individual was murdered, and he allows the stalking and murder to occur against citizens

who he wishes to silence their first amendment right. See the John O’Sullivan case. We

are dealing with sociopaths who have the same callousness as Nazis who would shoot,

Gas, or torture a Jew in Nazi Germany, all to preserve their pensions and obscene tax

based retirement schemes.

legalbear | December 7, 2012

Tell the judge, ‘Without a waiver from you, I don’t consent to you being my judge.’I’m

finding out more and more that the necessity of our “consent” is a well-kept secret. They

don’t want us to know about our right as a sovereign to withhold our consent. If you are

in court on a quasi-criminal or criminal matter every time they ask you for your signature

they are asking for your consent. They try to give you the feeling that you MUST sign the

document hoping that you won’t figure out what the Supreme Court said:

“We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in

power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by

public opinion, not public opinion by authority.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,

319 US 624, 641 – Supreme Court 1943 http://bit.ly/VOwbPu

In the above case, the coercion was a state law that threatened incarceration!

Here is a search of the Supreme Court on consent coerced: http://bit.ly/TOwWGK

One case said about a coerced search: “Where there is coercion, there is no consent.”

Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012

The problem there is, judicial discretion abuse. Denying your consent can be contempt

under a corrupt judge’s discretion and you will be sentenced to jail.

Sure you possibly can be set free in time, but you will never receive “redress” or ever be

vindicated.

As far as using “sovereign” to describe a citizens autonomy, I have no idea where that

derives from, other the misinterpretation and equivocation of the word. It derives from

14th Century France and was used only to describe a despot who was sovereign “to

reign,” as a king from folk etymology. Or also it is a gold coin in England.

I think what the so called sovereign citizens have done is disregard logic and word

meaning and mistake sovereign for inalienable perhaps or autonomous. Hitler considered

himself as that, and other sociopaths.

Humans must live together, and yes they have independence from abuse of power only.

But to claim citizens are sovereign is a modern day “folk etymology” that should be

avoided.

Webster says that “1 sovereign” is “obsolete,” and I agree, along with Copernicus and

Galileo. Galileo, as you recall, was imprisoned for life for challenging “sovereignty.”

Paul Decourcey | December 5, 2012

We The People have more power than any judge in this country. They are all working

under us and have an Oath of Office that we the people can use to end their careers and

sue them for $250,000.00 for each rights violation committed against us.

42 USC § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway

or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,

any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges

and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the

constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons

within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons

conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled

to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the

election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or

as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or

property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in

this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in

furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or

property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the

United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of

damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the

conspirators.

Pat Hamer | December 5, 2012

Well, It’s on the books, I tried it, and the case was settled on appeal, but it cost more than

the benefit and it only affects individuals who seek redress. It does nothing to protect

those who have not the resources for 42 USC 242. That is a myth!

Better would be 18 USC 241, 242, criminal prosecution, which would send a message to

officials to “tread lightly.”

18 USC 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in

any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or

enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the

United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with

intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so

secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if

death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include

kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit

aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in

any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or

enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the

United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with

intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so

secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if

death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include

kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit

aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully

subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties,

on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are

prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in

violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of

a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of

this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual

abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be

fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be

sentenced to death.

Why does not the FBI, DOJ, AG, Local Sheriff, uphold these laws. Citizens forced to 42

USC 1985, or 1983 are told once they are in front of the judge that the official is immune

due to the US constitution, (Alden v. Maine US. 1999).

Your so called “Oath of Office” is a common fallacy among most citizens, a false invalid

belief. The “Oath of Office” is to uphold the Constitution, which according to the

Supreme Court, (Alden v. Maine), officials are not liable, nor can they violate the

“supreme law of the land” (art. VI) and be held liable. Mentioning the Tort Claims act,

may convince some idiots, which is common by supporters of immunity, is of no

meaningful remedy.

I’ve heard that argument many times, but until those who use it, wake up and smell the

real coffee, our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists. It is in

the 11th. Amendment, and Alden v. Maine Contradicts eyewitness of the authors of the

Constitution itself in Supreme Court Opinion, stating contrary to the eyewitness, claiming

hearsay opinion that “Sovereign Rights of immunity come from the constitution itself,”

even though the word, according to author James Wilson, was left out on purpose,

(Chisholm v. Georgia U.S. 1793).

legalbear | December 7, 2012

I do not like the references in this thread similar to this:

“our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists”

In In re Duncan, 139 US 449 – Supreme Court 1891 the Court said:

“By the Constitution, a republican form of government is guaranteed to every State in the

Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose

their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of

the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said

to be those of the people themselves; but, while the people are thus the source of political

power, their governments, National and State, have been limited by written constitutions,

and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden

impulses of mere majorities.” Id. @ 461

To mention the word democracy is to reference the “sudden impulses of mere majorities”

which to my way of thinking is the source of the problem. The majorities, as well as the

judges, have forgotten that their “sudden impulses” are “limited by written constitutions,

and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power”.

Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012

re: quoting you; “I do not like the references in this thread similar to this:

“our democracy does not know where the basis for corruption exists”

Forgive me, not used to writing to individuals with such focus. Yes, I think we are still on

the same page. I have never met anyone who is aware of the source. The “SOURCE,” I

mean an actual amendment passed the number 10 that ended the bill of rights as an

inalienable right. So when I use the word democracy, I mean the majority who vote, had

no say or lesson or knowledge that they have been barred from the bill rights once to

have been “inalienable.”

So in that sense, the do not know, there is a legal basis to justify illegal corruption, and

most in our democracy do not know it exists. The good thing, back to your martial art

analogy, is that once they know, the momentum is in place to sling shot this right of

defense out of our court system and bye bye cronyism for the first time in history!

legalbear | December 8, 2012

“It does nothing to protect those who have not the resources for 42 USC 242. That is a

myth!”

You mean 42 USC § 1983?

Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012

Yes 1983, thanks for correcting. But we should not have to sue civily for criminal acts,

when the Supreme Court requires a rational basis for inaction, or alleged arbitrary abuse

of power. Officials simply state, “we have discretion.” Yes, but only if it is rational, and

not arbitrary, and there are no witnesses or victims. see Enquist v. Oregan 2008 US.

“Arbitrary denial of 14th amendment equal access to law enforcement services given to

similarly situated individuals.” “rational basis for inaction is required, and not protected

by discretion fallacy.”

18 USC 241 and 242, is the criminal charge that should be levied against these bastards.

legalbear | December 6, 2012

Couple more examples of using your opponents momentum against them:

File a suit against Los Angeles County alleging bribery and payoffs to the judges right

into the very courts the county is bribing. It’s very difficult for them to sit on a case

where their own name is in the complaint no matter how corrupt they are.

It is possible for a lower court to be in contempt of a higher court. When the lower court

rules contrary to a higher court’s precedent file a original proceeding petition into the

higher court asking them to issue a show cause order to the lower court to show cause

why they should not be held in contempt. I’ve done this with success.

The highest profile case I am aware of this happening involved the court down South,

possibly Georgia, that refused to remove the 10 Commandments from the wall of his

court even though he was ordered to by a federal court. The federal trial court was

motioned to hold the state court judge in contempt.

Pat Hamer | December 6, 2012

The neat thing about this overt acquiescence of these officials to bolster this immunity

travesty, is that it is written down policy. None of our schools teach this part of US

history, thus nobody really knows that there is a law that allows and encourages and

cultivates corruption.

If they did, I think they would find candidates who would run on this platform to end the

doctrine of immunity for the first time in world history. It truly is the last frontier of

tyranny left on earth, and we see the basis and solution for a simple end by just following

the use of logic and the rules that govern it.

So yes, in a sense, their own momentum is there, they just don’t advertise it. But the fact

is, “State Immunity” is enthymeme to protecting government officials when they violate

human rights. See Jurgen Brohm “State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights.”

Nazi’s used this to get their power, and in 1999 Alden v. Maine US said that this Nazi,

and right used by the inquisitors in the post dark ages, is alleged by them to be the major

premise of the constitution.

Not in my USA! If so, I want out! This is the source of corruption, we can end it through

media, but I surely don’t have the resources yet to get the word out! We need a producer

of Documentary to codify these facts and teach society the truth about state immune

Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012

I encourage you that there is one last hope. It is to pick up where Copernicus left off. He

created some momentum with those who have intellectual resources. Consequently, if

you understand the rules of logic, you could consider that his purpose was equivocated

from his intent to expose the dogma of the sovereign blue bloods, which is the basis for

today’s civil right intolerance for citizens who object to prima facie abuse of power that

is covered up 99.99999% of the time. The retaliation by theocracy for his science was the

minor premise. The Major Premise was question authority, and the conclusion was fraud

by dogma, which is the source of “sovereign immunity” today. After all, any 5th grader

knows sovereignty is royal power, not autonomy which is independence.

My purpose in putting this historical timeline together, ends rational skepticism, which

typically comes from those who profit from “sovereign immunity,” typically any

bureaucrat who it benefits, or willfully ignorant misguided individuals who do not know

how to parse the rhetoric that they refuse to substantiate. For instance, there is no

example in world history where the “over-deterrence” theory, if abandoned, would

destroy a nation; which is the modern day basis for the Supreme Court to uphold it, as

punishment in purgatory no longer holds water. Neither should this. Monty Python has

been using humor for many years to show the mental state of the majority of democracies

proletariat through comic analogy, contrasting dark age citizens of the world, enslaved to

exploitation by “sovereigns,” which so called modern society, still succumb to dogma, by

simple unsubstantiated rhetoric designed to deceive, yet pointed out 2500 years ago by

Aristotle teaching fallacy, and how to discover them, to end this deception by

Governments or unscrupulous lawyers.

So, I find very few people who read my historical outline on the subject of the “doctrine

of immunity” created out of religious dogma to justify obscene inquisition and murder,

actually realize that this is an accurate display. Nevertheless, the conclusion of my

premises reveal a simple solution never considered, unfortunately for freedom; outside of

revolution, as you say. Simply because we stop genocide, and obscene torture and capitol

punishment of public burning of live humans, the same elements of abuse of power still

exist. Those who are opposing my ideas regarding state immunity are the “SS” foot

soldiers rewarded with state money to abuse us. State Immunity, which is enthymeme to

the only purpose of “shielding” officials when they are called to violate human right.

When the profits of someone in control of state power are affected negatively, i.e., all

bureaucrats, political action committees and special interest need sovereign immunity to

allow their appointees to circumvent the rule of law, and this is the Holy Grail for them.

One might reconsider secret societies such as the Free Mason’s legacy Knights of

Templar secrecy surrounding a so called Holy Grail. If anything, sovereign immunities

elusive nature is that secret and so guarded. It is so astounding that such an open law is so

unknown to the masses. Individual citizens aligned with ending their right to abuse of

power have been excluded from the constitution by the 11th amendment, and more

recently by Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, yet no one in media noticed, and isn’t that there

job to inform a nation, of a coup to democracy? I’m ashamed to have been part of this

deception, and do nothing!

Finally we see a solution, and it is not “a” solution but the only rational solution that can

be reversed legally, without rewriting the constitution. Remove one amendment, the 11th,

and add another one reiterating James Wilson, eye witness and author to the fact that, “to

the constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown (Chisholm v. Georgia US 1793).

This would remove hearsay testimony from the 5 neo Nazi’s under Kennedy / Scalia

tyrants who violated rule of law on its face by excluding witness testimony over inference

and hearsay; inspite of the four minority who had the truth that was already upheld in the

Supreme Court. How can citizens stand by, or not even know, that 5 tyrants reversed the

Constitution of the United States from the popular inference that our Constitution protects

poeple from “corrupt” tyranny, to a Constitution that protects “sovereign” tyrants from its

“subservient subjects” (Bogan v. Scott-Harris US 1999 and Alden).

World Nations or society have never existed without a “doctrine of immunity.” But there

is no example that shows it is essential for society to function, other than the proper form

in “diplomatic immunity,” rationally explained as essential. USA has not diplomats

between states that would be affected. On the contrary, there are many examples that

show public commerce, is no different that private commerce, when it comes to corrupt

interstate commerce. Imprisoning corrupt private business men does not end state

commerce through frivolous lawsuits. Neither will imprisoning a panoply of corrupt

officials. Even the failure of entire industries, mortgage or corporate. In fact, these

failures show the corruption in lack of enforcing the commerce clause do to the lack of

deterrence created by immunizing corrupt officials is the sole problem, but nobody,

except myself and a handful of others has publicly considered this. Is it not rational to

think that corruption allowed in Government will harm our economy? Show me any main

stream journalism that would even consider this? Are they all brain dead? It seems they

are at least hypnotized or drugged [facetiousness added]? Nevertheless, law suits exist

against public employee and the state, because citizens don’t know they cannot sue, so

that “over-deterrence” argument is baseless and without support in the record, because

they said “law suits” would end or deter people from desiring to be in power. Contrarily,

the real truth is that we know non other than potential criminals and sociopaths will be

deterred from public service, and our economy would actually start to bloom into the

most utopian society that ever existed! A society founded on real truth and justice not on

pretending we are that! USA is not a just society; the facts are not hid, just the failure to

report these facts to the electorate.

What must be done? I know you believe, it is not possible for “logic to prevail.” I agree,

only because citizens have never been made aware of what I teach through my research.

You seemingly agree stating, “But thanks for your insights into the depth and legal

history of this depraved and perverse legal system. Now I understand. In reality…the

only “rule of law”..is theirs.”

I hear that a lot from those who have focus to muddle through internet writings.

Unfortunately I was not a journalist major, so my communication in this type of media is

not superb.

So what needs to be done? The public needs to have an opportunity to learn this history

regarding elements (“State Immunity and the Violation of Human Right” Jurgen Brohm)

in world government that naturally, by nature, de-claw and make democracy a harmless

pipe dream appear to be reality. State Immunity is “absolute power,” everything we are

taught that dictatorships, tyrants, and mass murderers, Hitler, Poll Pot, Stalin, among

others did to us. There are those reading this with the resources to expose this for the first

time on a national level. It really is the only sane solution! The revolution was already

fought, we just underestimated those with resources waiting to create the first most

diabolically brilliant coup on mankind to them believe they live in a democracy without

most of the “good people” being aware of the immunity that ended it.

Those of you who want to skew violence, let’s put together a group, and get the resources

for filming a documentary on the evils of the doctrine of immunity. Nobody really knows

how bad it exists, and the government does not hide the Supreme Court cases that

destroyed our bill of rights with it. Only because current press and producers do not know

it themselves. The carrot in this is revisiting the pioneers who first proclaimed it,

Copernicus and Galileo, among others, and for the Second time in History [first time was

1776 until it ended in 1795 ratification of 11th amendment] we can put an end to

legalized abuse of power in a nations constitution! Now that’s freedom! “Let freedom

ring” MLK Jr. Contact me at

homesculptor@yahoo.com

http://www.the11thamendment.com

December 6, 2012

I like Luke 19:13 where he says not to sit on your hands, but “Occupy till I come.”

December 5, 2012

for historical data on this see http://www.the11thamendment.com

December 6, 2012

Because once you inter into their real to file a complaint, they can arrest you and punish

you under their jurisdictional power and right to abuse discretion without fear of punitive

deterrence. Read Macias v. Ihde about how officials “fundamentally misconstrue” true

allegations by victims, and how the officials fix and fabricate the story to make the victim

appear to be the trouble maker. This happens all the time, the Macias court called this

tactic a “cause of murder, stalking, and violence” committed by officials who use their

power to misconstrue true allegations of vicitms who cause the official trouble for not

doing their job!

This doesn’t happen everywhere, I suppose, but it is spreading to most jurisdictions now.

It is out of hand. That is why people are now more afraid of police and officials than

criminals.

Ironically, in 2004 the Supreme Court US stated tha citizens have no constitutional right

for protection against murderers or madmen or private violence, even if they had a

restraining order.

But why is it that they have a right to ignore the law under Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999 and

not be liable for disobeying article VI of the constitution. This is breeding lawlessness in

our law enforcement and their supervisors, it must end!

December 6, 2012

In 2007 I filed a grand Jury complaint in El Dorado County. Judge James Wagoner,

without knowing who I was, or a court docket allowing him jurisdiction, send a state seal

letter to my wife and I telling us that if we did not drop or contact with an active open

case we filed, GJ07-007 he would arrest my wife, myself, probably my dogs that were

shot, who knows what else he would have done. This is criminal for him to do that, but

nobody would arrest him in our jurisdiction or even file our report.

The cjp.ca admonished him in 2009 for this complaint alleging wire fraud, witness

tampering, witness intimidation, threat of kidnapping us for exercising legal write to file

complaints, threatening to steal our finances, etc. all RICO violations! In 2010,

undaunted, this tyrant scum bag judge James Wagoner did arrest Penny Arnold, only for

being an outspoken political activist, similar to our redress retaliation. He served a year

punishment, and the same http://www.cjp.ca.gov found that Wagoner had no legal right

to arrest her for anything, that she did nothing wrong. The federal civil court, after she

sued, punished her with a sanction for the crime committed by James Wagoner. So don’t

tell me your fairytale about Grand Jury rights! They are all fixed appointed people they

approve of! They are the same should that allowed Nazis’ to extinguish the Jews.

December 6, 2012

I to encourage people to look at the source of the problem and not the victims as a

solution. We victims must set aside our losses, and join together and educate society on

the what laws exist that allow corruption in our system, and let them decide. For the last 2

centuries, democracy has been excluded from decisions that are concerned with immunity

laws, and this ends any democracy! If we cannot redress our grievances due to

government abuse, then why did we have a revolution in the first place? We have no

representation in 2012 to redress our grievances, and this statement is supported by the

US Supreme Court in 1998 Bogan v.Scott-Harris, regardless if you can read the contrary

in the first amendment itself.

It’s not the document that establishes the law and action or inaction, it is the Supreme

Courts “opinions.”

December 6, 2012

I guess to finish this- I am bewildered, that an “insider” is revealing something as if the

historical events that create the “LEGAL BASIS” for corruption in our government is hid

on the “INSIDE.”

FDN report is featuring an individual that confirms what we already know by stating,

“yeah I was on inside and yes they are corrupt,” which is overstating the obvious. The

solution lies in each individual understanding the best way to determine truth, so that

justice can be had. This is through basic understanding of logic, possibly understanding

the theory behind syllogism, the first few chapters in a college philosophy course. Major

premise, minor premise, and conclusion, is necessary according to Aristotle and his 2500

year fan base. So what I did, was identify what the major premise was, that causes all the

minor premise activism to end what has happened to Mr. Fine for instance.

What I find among most journalist / Activists, is they are not obeying these laws of logic,

but relying on “journalism” tactics, creating “band wagon” audiences through marketing

gimmicks, ethos, pathos, etc., where they generate sensationalism. For instance FDN

believes they need to fix LA county judges. Yet these judges are only following the

Supreme Law of the Land (Alden v. Maine, etc.) and acting within it. For instance, they

already replaced Yaffe, I believe, but nothing has changed. Also they claim that the cause

of action was the “violation of state constitution,” or “misappropriating tax dollars.”

What is FDN suggesting their audience do? My opinion of what they have done is to

limit their scope to LA, as if that is the source of the problem (wasting resources on a

minor premise, a strategy proven for failure, see Sun Tzu, “Art of War.”

The source of abuse of power lies in some loop hole in a statute that allows corruption or

corruption solely based upon corrupt individuals. Is that not a correct place to start

looking? Because I have pointed to laws and constitutional amendments that, not just

suggest, but mandate, “even if corrupt, the law will not tolerate a citizens redress….”

legally ended the First Amendment right, see Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998 U.S., it would

seem that this is the pond that allows the mosquitoes to perpetuate. Nobody knows this,

because most blogs like FDN refuses to acknowledge it exists. Revealing this outrages

individuals, which would spark a bloodless intellectual revolution. Au contraire Mon

Ami; but because media ignores it the audience, so called “democracy” has no clue it

exists, thus nothing in our democracy becomes a democracy, so instead we are decreed

the court appointed “sovereignty of “Alden v. Maine,” absent democratic awareness.

In other words, Alden v. Maine and the 11th Amendment, and the dogmatic fallacy of jus

cogens sovereignty (sovereign immunity), are the major premise that solidify the

conclusion, that turning a blind eye to corruption (the over-deterrence theory) is a

necessary requirement for government not to fail. This is illogical, implausible, and

without basis in the record* of the Declaration of Independence, and overtly absent in the

Constitution itself (Chisholm v. Georgia U.S. 1793). So the Major premise is a law that

allows corruption to cultivate. Does this explain why our country, and the world is in

such turmoil, solely to preserve the wealth by unjust immunity of those who assume risk

or have a desire to skew justice if they over exploit by abuse of power? We all assume

risk, giving public citizens a pass is a Utopian Nazi totalitarian inestimable right! The

minor premises are the benefits officials are now entitled to, and if the benefit to an

official harms a citizen, the conclusion is there is no “redress of grievance;” and thus the

Constitution itself is proven to be a baseless document, and all the citizens, are not the

beneficiaries, but only those employed by the state, federal and local governments are

protected by the constitution, unless by decree or the discretion of the judiciary, which,

by the way, makes the word “inalienable” of no consequence. This is an inequality that

the intent and 14th amendment ironically and contradictory create the invalidity of

immunity res ipsa loquitur.

So, activists are left with the task to reverse the conclusion, if we all believe the contrary

that the constitution is to protect people from oppressive government. Because as it

stands, Alden v. Maine 1999, says that the constitution was formed to protect officials

from the people they abuse, and there is no other reality, because the Supreme Court is

“supreme.” So what is FDN, a voice with above average resources, doing? They are

pointing to some minor premises that caused Mr. Fine some pain, without identifying the

cause of action. What a waste of resources. But then the longer people support this

endeavor, those who failed to learn “syllogism,” it will appear that something is being

done. This same strategy is repeated across the land with all activism that is objecting to

abuse of power.

So what text exist that teach us strategy? Perhaps the simplest is “The Art of War” by

Sun Tzu. His philosophy is spot on with Aristotle’s syllogism. He stated that, “2. Hence

to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence

consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” (Chapter III Attack by

stratagem). How do you do that? You have to stop throwing away resources to those who

ignore strategy, unkindly put, the inept (willfully stubborn) who somehow lead activism.

You must find those who are capable of leadership, who know where the enemy really

resides. Cluster bombing is only a form of terrorism, which is what abuse of power is..

Sun Said, in the same Chapter, “3. the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s

forces….” (the 11th. Amendment and Case law that bars redress is a mere “injunction”

that if implausible can be over-ruled see FRCP, among others.) The coup de gras, to kind

a phrase, is the “MAJOR PREMISE,” THE ONLY ONE, THERE IS NO OTHER

FRONT LINE, is stated at sentence 7, “With his forces intact he will dispute the

MASTERY OF THE EMPIRE (the major premise, emphasis added), and thus, without

losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by

stratagem.”

Okay FDN, get on the front lines! At least take a stab at it! Those who fail to learn from

history are doomed to repeat it!

*nor is there is an example in world history to support this as a failure of governments.

Richard M. | December 11, 2012

1. You are absolutely correct that the 11th Amendment must be eliminated because it

empowers individuals (gov employees) with abuse able power for which there is

effectively no recourse. Without eliminating this basic wellspring, corruption will

continue increasing because people with power will tend to benefit from abusing it and if

unaccountable cannot be stopped.

2. Unfortunately, I see no way to convince any significant percentage of the populace of

the above. Education and the general media is thoroughly controlled and the internet

probably will be soon. Even if the info was widely available, the populace is being

systematically dumbed down by various techniques and is more concerned with

meaningless drivel. Finally, conformity to the status quo is being enforced by ever

increasing control over people through use of databases which are rapidly getting to the

point where troublemaking “subversives” can be easily identified and “punished”

economically with bad “credit” ratings, diminished employment/housing opportunities,

adverse government regulatory/police attention etc. Finally, it goes without saying that a

“subversive” who ends up in court, either in a criminal or civil case, will lose and likely

face worse consequences than if he was a typical loser.

3. I commend you on your persistence, optimism and incredibly thorough research and

analysis. My only suggestion is that you minimize your historical references. No matter

how fascinating and germane you find the correlations, the material is already very

difficult for most of us to follow and unnecessary historical background tends to add

distraction.

4. FDN should also be commended (and supported) for their continued coverage of the

issue of corruption in the courts. Because none of society’s problems can be resolved

while criminals can run amok, this is basically THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT

FACTOR regarding this county’s rapid decline.

Also, getting Allan Parachini was a great achievement and probably does more for FDN’s

credibility than any of their other interviewees and in this regard, I don’t think his insider

status as the court’s public face was stressed enough.

legalbear | December 7, 2012

” If we cannot redress our grievances due to government abuse, then why did we have a

revolution in the first place?”

My thought: An entire civil war culminated in “due process” and “equal protection”

being imposed upon the states and these judges collectively treat it sooooooo lightly. It

seems they need to be reminded that:

“In a government of laws,” said Mr. Justice Brandeis, “existence of the government will

be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the

omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.

Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for

law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that

in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the

Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—

would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should

resolutely set its face.” 277 U. S., at 485. (Dissenting opinion.) Elkins v. United States,

364 US 206, 223 – Supreme Court 1960

And that:

“But there is another consideration— the IMPERATIVE of JUDICIAL INTEGRITY.”

Elkins, @ 222.

Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012 | Permalink Reply

Here Here my man! If we can understand this, then so can the democracy, but they have

not been informed. My best source, is from the current Dean of law a UC Irvine, Erwin

Chemerinsky,

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=llr&sei-

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%

26q%3Dalden%2520v.%2520maine%2520defendants%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2

%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu

%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2235%2526context%253Dllr%26e

i%3D8g4PUNSfA-

fmiwLXzYHQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGGGQKWI0leW9WoffElcmmSkS1YoA#searc

h=%22alden%20v.%20maine%20defendants%22

When they use the phase, “pernicious doctrine,” i see it as a reference to James Wilson’s

use in 1793 Chisholm. That says it all. Wilson was an eye witness, and author of the

Constitution. He testified in the Supreme Court as an “author,” that “to the constitution,

the word sovereign is totally unknown.” This was over-ruled by hearsay evidence

tampering and fraud in 1999 by the 5 supreme court justices, despite the warning of 4

others.

legalbear | December 7, 2012

It seems to me that we should be also reminding each and every court we come in contact

with the following:

“There is no more sacred duty of a court than, in a case properly before it, to maintain

unimpaired those securities for the personal rights of the individual which have received

for ages the sanction of the jurist and the statesman; and in such cases no narrow or

illiberal construction should be given to the words of the fundamental law in which they

are embodied.” ex parte Lange, 85 US 163, 178 (1873).

legalbear | December 7, 2012

It seems to me that we should be also reminding each and every court we come in contact

with the following:

“The Constitution of a State is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon by the

temper of the times, nor to rise and fall with the tide of events; notwithstanding the

competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm

and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst

the raging of the waves. I take it to be a clear position; that if a legislative act oppugns a

constitutional principle, the former must give way, and be rejected on the score of

repugnance. I hold it to be a position equally clear and found, that, in such case, it will be

the duty of the Court to adhere to the Constitution, and to declare the act null and void.

The Constitution is the basis of legislative authority; it lies at the foundation of all law,

and is a rule and commission by which both Legislators and Judges are to proceed. It is

an important principle, which, in the discussion of questions of the present kind, ought

never to be lost sight of, that the Judiciary in this country is not a subordinate, but co-

ordinate, branch of the government.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 309 (1795).

Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012

Well, what I learned in study of philosophical logic, was that informing the courts, who

are corrupt, is a minor premise, and will not bring a favorable conclusion. Also Sun Tzu

in Art of War, stated, “With his forces intact he will dispute the MASTERY OF THE

EMPIRE (the major premise, emphasis added), and thus, without losing a man, his

triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.”

So informing a non “mastery of the empire” is what all of our activists are doing now,

and nothing ever changes. Those who ended slavery and the prohibition knew what to do,

and then that knowledge of stratagem died with them. We must revive it and simply

repeal the 11th amendment and amend the constitution to “eye witness” testimony that is

already in the court record in 1793. Opinion of sovereignty has no basis in the record, and

cannot survive appeal.

The courts are an act of Futility as far as civil right reform goes.

Pat Hamer | December 7, 2012

I agree, but the 3rd branch has been hewn from the tree, and makes it up as they go no

Pat Hamer | December 8, 2012

One can hope that through the mass infliction of internet media, Logic can finally prevail.

It is a shame that it has never been able to. But Taking up guns, has been made antiquated

by the US mimicking Soviet style KGB restraining citizens who object to abuse of

power, and the Soviets, Instead of openly banning free speech, learn to mimic US policy

of inserting mere poetry and calling it a constitution to cause those who openly express

anti totalitarian thought to come out believing they are free from retaliation.

Quite an interesting observation on the word acquiesce.

December 8, 2012

You quoted “Yeah, they loaded weapons. Ultimately, that’s exactly what they had to do

in the revolution too…” Actually, more accurate they repealed slavery with the 13th

amendment, the slave owners picked up the guns, and alcohol enthusiasts repealed

prohibitions constitutional amendment with a simple amendment, again, Melvin Purvice

and his agents had a blast shooting and killing mobsters who protested the amendment to

end alcohol enthusiasm.

If we repeal the 11th amendment, and abuse of power continues, there is no longer any

11th amendment defense, once Alden v. Maine is amended by congress, the same way

the reversed Chisholm v. Georgia 1793, in the sovereigns bloodless coup to reverse the

revolution which is inarguably the result of this 11th amendment.

legalbear | December 8, 2012

“why are there no citizen’s arrests?”

I did some initial research on this. I found this quote:

“The United States Supreme Court, however, has ruled that, while one must look to state

law to find the authority for a state peace officer OR A PRIVATE PERSON TO

ARREST SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITTED A FEDERAL FELONY in the State of

New York, this does not mean that such authority can only be invoked where the federal

felony is exactly reflected in an identical state criminal statute; rather, it is only necessary

that the federal crime be of the same standard or class of offense, here, for example a

felony and that the state procedure authorize arrests for felonies by peace officers of the

state OR BY PRIVATE PERSONS MAKING A “CITIZEN’S ARREST.” The possible

penalty for violation of the Munitions Control Act is two years of imprisonment, so that it

fits both the New York state and federal definitions of felony.

THE LEADING SUPREME COURT CASES ON THIS SUBJECT ARE, in

chronological order, United States v. DiRe, supra, and United States v. Watson, supra.”

United States v. Swarovski, 557 F. 2d 40, 48 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1977

http://bit.ly/126u0KH

With this case as the lead in to further research, what I propose is filing a declaratory

judgment petition into a court of general jurisdiction asking the court: 1. When I see or

know about a judge committing a crime is there any legal reason I cannot effect a

citizen’s arrest on that judge? 2. Once I arrest the judge, should I allow that judge to set

his own bail? 3. Should I allow that judge’s colleagues to set his bail? 4. While I await a

decision respecting bail, can I keep the judge in my basement? 5. What should I do if law

enforcement refuses to assist me in effecting the arrest for purely political reasons? 6.

When a judge violates the law can we just skip due process and move right to sentencing?

Can you see I am just trying to come up with hard questions and put the court on the

horns of a dilemma? Help me out here!

December 8, 2012

More thoughts on declaratory judgment RE CITIZEN’S ARRESTS OF JUDGES:

Please issue an order to the sheriff or US Marshals to give me the same access to the sally

port as law enforcement and order them to teach me how to fill out the proper paperwork

at the jail following an arrest; especially when I inform them that I have arrested a judge.

Order the marshals or sheriff’s deputies to treat arrested judges EXACTLY the same as

other arrestees; fingerprints, iris scans, and overnight stays pending first appearance in

court.

Pat Hamer | December 9, 2012

We are so indoctrinated in the 2 party system, quoting the names of the opposing party,

such as Obama, etc…

Yet, if those of you who blame abuse of power on the other party, look at the Kennedy

Scalia Court. I was a former Republican, and I am not a Democrat. This insane behavior

of repeating failure over and over by changing who controls the right to abuse power has

to end, and it needs to start with those who are thinking this bad citizen policy will help. I

will not.

We have all been so hurt and victimized by official acts that are overtly contrary to

written rule of law, and nothing is being done to deter or punish these officials. These

officials are only relying on the “over-deterrence theory” that they sell, but only when

asked by individuals, usually plaintiffs suing defendants, and Judges remind plaintiff, “in

spite of the First Amendment Right to redress…we have decided that it no longer is valid,

because we have worked hard for or jobs, and you shouldn’t be able to fire us for our

negligence and corruption.” Of course I’m paraphrasing Bogan v. Scott-Harris who

stated, “even if we are corrupt…the law will not tolerate a citizen redress…” They said

this was “long standing and well known.”

Today’s revolution need only be a bloodless revolution, via an intellectual exodus from

enabling Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents from controlling the influence of

abuse of power under the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine “sovereign right to

abuse.” This removes the legal defense, and the inference by law enforcement that

criminal charges also be ignored. Then we can cull the government of the sociopaths who

have learned where crime pays.

December 9, 2012

Kennedy and Scalia have ended the right of a citizen to redress a grievance in the civil

courts, redress = “make right the losses.”

I am a former Republican, and if you learn what they are doing with immunity,

Prosecutors can now frame innocent citizens for death penalty cases and not be held

liable, see Thompson v. Connick for Christ sake!

Bogan v. Scott-Harris they 5 tyrant Neo Nazis said that corruption has not right of

redress, and the US citizen victims must suffer the losses without any remedy. I think that

is what King George III said, is it not?

Pat Hamer | December 29, 2012

It boils down to one issue according to the Supreme Court, which must, at least create a

controversy that biased judges can over-look abuse of discretion, such as in Alden v.

Maine 1999 to us “common law” stari decisis as a means to formulate us policy under an

appearance of democracy.

Ironically, they chose the old common law of allowing “sovereigns” who could legally

but arbitrarily cut off the heads of wives, or steal property under assumed divine right for

the good of the kingdom, and the approval of the Church and God.

The problem is with the definition and meaning of Sovereign[ty]. No where is the misuse

of the noun or adjective sovereign associated with a democracy, other than the U.S.

Supreme court in the last decade, see Ohio Law Journal law Professor Steve G. Gey “The

Myth of Sovereignty”

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.6.gey_.pdf

But first look at, for instance, United Kingdom’s official web site of British Monarchy,

where we derive our so called common law from. It contradicts, in one sentence, our

supreme court “grand delusion” they made for themselves and other officials as a reward

for silence. This website answers the question, “What is Constitutional Monarchy?” It’s

simple answer is, “As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign must remain politically

neutral.” “…the Sovereign…” is enthymeme, and commonly known to all, as the heir of

the divinely appointed blood line of rulers appointed under the impression, that God

himself appointed this bloodline as “Supreme Beings” trusted to rule by the will of the

Christian God.” I personally will not argue the fallacy or validity of this system, but it

shows that it does not belong as elements of the U.S. Government coming from our

Supreme Court, but that is what Alden v. Maine had to use in order to grant immunity for

corrupt officials (from Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998), due to the 11th amendment argument

in conflict with eye witness James Wilson. Wilson stated in Chisholm that the authors

agreed to leave “sovereignty” from the Constitution, because “it is a perversion of the

genus species…” of logical syllogism (Chisholm v. Georgia 1793). This shocking news

caused congress to immediately anonymously write the 11th amendment 2 days later. It

took 3 more years for representatives to overcome shame of reinstating the cause of

action that started the revolution and ratify it as the 11th amendment. The Sovereigns that

the supreme court made for themselves, is hardly “…politically neutral…”

How is this history not widely known, even though it is written right out in the open and

not hid? Here is what professor Gey stated as a plausible reason, “It is now apparent that

the United States is in the midst of a constitutional revolution. For the most part, it is a

quiet revolution. The issues around which the revolution is being fought are so esoteric

that anyone not possessing an unnaturally strong interest in the structural aspects of

constitutional law will have a difficult time staying awake long enough to understand the

details of what is happening. In short, during the last ten years a narrow but steadfast

five-member majority of the Supreme Court has used a broad conception of state

sovereignty to expand the power of state government (and simultaneously to restrict he

power of the federal government) in virtually every area in which the two governments

operate.”

So until victims of this abuse stop attacking policy in the lower courts and jurisdictions

by futile complaints, this will continue. Most people are AWOL from the front lines of

battle, which is the 11th amendment and Alden v. Maine, among others, but these are the

“Mastery of Empire,” Sun Tzu said would cause victory without the lose of any troops.

Pat Hamer | December 31, 2012 | Permalink Reply

FDN wants to do documentaries on issues that will have no change on policy surrounding

government corruption. http://www.fulldisclosure.net/2012/08/usa-vs-

corruption/?utm_source=Emailbrain&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NewsletterLink&

utm_campaign=12-31-12-DocuLetter&utm_content=

I was censored there, I’ll try here

Hey Joe, “crime syndicate” is a fact. Look at RICO stats. Jeff Grail has a great website

and has a focus on govt corruption in his elements, which is rare for state officials to do.

http://www.ricoact.com

I think people with “assets and financial resources” to produce documentary have been

educated in the use of logic taught in classical philosophy. Any financier, would notice

that FDN is local, and majors on minor premises of corruption, failing to identify in their

media, what Sun Tzu stated would cause victory without loss of troops. This is what he

called the “Master of the Empire.” They are openly wasting resources on blaming the

“president, prosecutors, elections, court corruption, expensive high school (roflmao),

propaganda, corruption in paradise (a repeat of all the above.). Each one of these claims

are minor premises, describing agencies that can abuse power, have been given authority

to do so under Alden v. Maine. Each occur as a direct result of abuse of power by

fundamentally misconstruing common law, centered around the “doctrine of immunity.”

Alden arose from the 11th amendment which was so perverted in the use of logic, it

could no longer remain a “straight faced” opinion. Even Alden merely delays the

awareness of the absurdity of “sovereigns” governing the USA with “absolute power,

made palatable by cloaking it in “electoral democracy,” which is absurd when we can

chose “sovereigns” as our term limited dictatorial tyrants. Thus creating the Major

premise with a conclusion that corruption will not be harmful to US policy, simply so

they don’t loose their assets for abusing power. The solution, before all others would

make sense that ending this “right of tyrants only,” (Dec. of Ind.), is not that far from

fruition, but only if people knew the links that had to be removed, and they do not, and

FDN’s 20 years of wasting time shows this.

When I read the article, I had already done research to see if there was a rational basis,

that the government could use to ignore “rule of law.” I discovered that it was the

perverting of logical syllogism and equivocating words and terms into meanings that are

not supported by definition from its original and even modern definition. I explain this at

http://www.the11thamendment.com. Even though we view judicial decree that is contrary

to our belief in what the constitution is, as “corrupt.” They simply equivocate criminal

abuse of power 18 USC 242, to what they deem non-criminal “abuse of discretion,”

which in reality is criminal “abuse of power, especially when you can show that common

law was ignored. If there was some form of deterrence, which there is none, other than

judicial counsel complaints (judging judges by crony judges) the bias exists to cover up

their colleagues making decisions to further strengthen the right to abuse under Alden’s,

“sovereign power.”

I always wondered why other seemingly educated and intelligent persons could not grasp

this, in fact, I considered that I might even be caught in some major flaw in my logic, that

I could not overcome, which I believe vehemently is to ignore the minor issues, and focus

on attacking the laws that allow corruption, i.e. 11th amendment, Alden, etc. I could be

wrong, but this should be the first thing to do. But as you see, FDN claims “20 years” as

pioneers shedding light on corruption, yet they ignore the simple reality, that if a law

allows corruption, attacking corrupt officials who are protected by the law is futility. I

have been perplexed, why I never saw this before, and perplexed further by pointing this

out, only a minority of persons seem to be able to make the connection. Other than the

lame “over-deterrence theory,” I have not had anyone able to point out the flaw.

My question of “why” was answered appropriately by another attorney professor in the

Ohio State Law Journal Steven G. Gey. Professor Gey, my presumption that fallacy

abusive misleading rhetoric, such as the fallacy of equivocation was the culprit, allowing

a perverted form of a good law, i.e. “diplomatic immunity,” derived from the 14th

century (see Bartolus “par en parem non habet imperium.”) to slip into our paradigm,

thus upsetting the shift of justice, making injustice a reality, I believe temporary awaiting

an intellectual revolution and renaissance. Until you people think like me, we are going to

suffer as much abuse as possible, instead of minimal abuse with “sovereign immunity.”

In Gey’s article, “The Myth of State Sovereignty,”

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/63.6.gey_.pdf gey stated that,

paramount and foremost, in the introduction 1st paragraph,

“It is now apparent that the United States is in the midst of a constitutional revolution.

For the most part, it is a quiet revolution. The issues around which the revolution is being

fought are so esoteric that anyone not possessing an unnaturally strong interest in the

structural aspects of constitutional law will have a difficult time staying awake long

enough to understand the details of what is happening.”

Sovereignty, in reality is a myth, a form of dogma, being forced on society, first pointed

out by Copernicus, and Galileo. The paradigm shift was actually equivocated to natural

science instead of the intended political and social science. The paradigm shift intended,

will occur by ending dogmatic form of government responsible for birthing “sovereignty”

allowing government to exploit humans by violating human rights and justice through

religious dogma that justified by immunity for “Gods earthly emissaries.” Separation of

church and state, also means removing religious dogma, such as immunity. Evil doers in

government are supposed to be “equal” under the 14th amendment, but we see that is a

fallacy also. It takes years of studying legal theory that connects the dots. One is the

Rational basis theory. Enquist v. Oregan 2008 states that “rational basis” is required for

acts that may be declared unconstitutional, or inaction that may discriminate by denying

what other “similarly situated individuals” have received (violation of 14th amendment

for govt service discrimination).

So all perceived acts of corruption that causes citizens or classes of citizens’ damages, are

immune under the 11th amendment, (that basis set aside by Alden stating the Constitution

did not need the 11th amendment in the first place, “sovereignty is the rule of law” and

sovereigns can do anything).

So what we witness in USA is that attacking officials in civil court who abuse you is

punitive similar to criminal punishment but cloaked under “sanctions, contempt, among

other.” If you are in a very corrupt jurisdiction, and you try to rectify injustice, no matter

if it is res ipsa loquitur, prima facie, 100 witnesses, don’t matter, federal magistrates are

funneled these “state case” and they “fundamentally misconstrue” the facts using “Mock

Trial” (without a jury or rights to subpoena), and create an illusion to the public of “they

had their day in court and failed.”

So FDN and 99.9% of activist news, that pretend they want to fix corruption, cannot get

people like us who know the truth to support their futile idiotic motion pictures featuring

disgruntled victims, as if “the people” would cause fear in officials if they were made

aware that the “government was corrupt.” The marketing strategy I see, is that “victims,”

will fund their own stories and do the leg work providing an income stream for their lame

activism. People already know officials are corrupt, and they don’t care, because they

don’t know the solution. The good news is laid before us with elemental connections that

are easily followed. The cases exist and the record supports overt corruption in the files

of today’s decisions. Once we end immunity, the evidence is just waiting to prosecute

Yaffe’s and others. But only if you follow what I have laid out, will we ever see change. I

didn’t come up with the idea, I just have not given up or died like others behind me! We

must attack the “Mastery of the Empire” that cultivates Corruption in US politics, and

that is the “doctrine of immunity.” There is no historical basis to show that “abandoning

this doctrine would destroy our way of government.” The quote has become their only

accepted basis to justify this tyranny the Declaration called “a right inestimable to them

only, and formidable for tyrants.

Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved

337 Washington Blvd. #1, Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Tel 310.822.4449 Fax: 310.919.2890